Yesterday we started to see calls for Hillary Clinton to challenge the election results in the mainstream press. I had already read this piece (You’re not just imagining it: the Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump vote totals do look rigged), which fairly clearly lays out the argument. Mostly, it’s about trends and patterns: yes there are many interruptions of the pattern, that is why the results were such a surprise. Without running the analyses, though, I would wager a bet that they are all within a statistical margin of error. Yes, when you look at it as a whole (especially given the emerging numbers in the swing states and evidence of Russian hacking), it seems very suspicious.
Last night, I shared the CNN account (Computer scientists urge Clinton campaign to challenge election results) on Facebook. This morning, The Guardian published Hillary Clinton urged to call for election vote recount in battleground states. Will Clinton do so? She probably does not want to, because, like Obama, she is more concerned with a peaceful transition and the good of the country than with holding power herself. She has conceded. I believe that Hillary Clinton should not challenge the results, but I believe the Justice Department should open an investigation (although no, your call will not encourage them to do so; they need evidence.
When I say the DoJ should open an investigation, I am presuming that evidence exists (that can include statistical anomalies; I run statistical analyses all the time; when the results are surprising, I check my data, rerun all the analyses, and then think about my method, especially data collection. Sometimes the results really are just surprising.).
Will they turn up evidence of fraud? Possibly, but I doubt it. Even if they did, Hillary Clinton conceded.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgoNjQ&w=560&h=315]
Yes, if the vote recount were decisively in her favor, she would be well within her rights to retract the concession.
But let’s think about why the election may have been rigged and who might have done it.
Donald Trump did not rig the election. He did not expect to win; he was completely unprepared to be President. I don’t believe he wanted to be President.
Let’s pretend that Putin rigged the election. (When I say pretend, I mean accept the condition, not that he did not do it. I do not know.) His purpose would be to weaken the United Stated by causing domestic unrest.
What scenario would have been the most likely to cause unrest?
Clinton winning the electoral college and Trump winning the popular vote. This was well nigh impossible, because of Clinton’s strengths in major metropolitan areas. Even if, as has apparently happened, large portions of urban voters failed to turn out, Clinton was clearly ahead. What was more possible, with targeted election fraud, was to bring the vote close in key areas of swing states. Given what we know, this seems to be a possibility (Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States).
If Trump had lost these states by a few hundred votes, we would have had his supporters running around screaming out for recounts and accusing the Clintons (and probably the Obama Administration) of having hacked the election. The best case realistic scenario was four gridlocked years of the GOP searching for ways to spend more public money investigating Clinton for things it looks like Trump will be doing every day without fear of reprisal.
The way I see it, if there was fraud, and Putin was behind it, he overshot his mark. Yes, he may in some ways like the idea of a Trump presidency, but practically speaking, it puts a great deal of uncertainty in international relations. Mainly, he probably did not really expect Trump to win, and now he has to adjust his strategy. A hotly contested Clinton victory, with Trump supporters stirring up domestic unrest, would have been much easier for Putin to deal with. (and yes, safer for the world, if worse for the country) It’s like bidding for a dead broke Quarter horse and ending up buying an untrained Thoroughbred (or maybe an Arabian 😉 you aren’t sure you can control.
At this point, I am not sure that proof even that Clinton had won all three of the swing states in question by thousands would make it advisable for her to retract the concession, but this would certainly put the legitimacy of a Trump presidency in question. Merely investigating the voting in those states will take away some of the power of his base.
As some of you no doubt remember, as soon as I had recovered from the shock and horror of the election (I still have to suppress the disgust reaction to moral purity violation on a regular basis… Just thinking of the fact that millions of people in this country either agree with the hatred and bigotry expressed by the Trump campaign and perpetrated by some of those he is choosing for his Cabinet still makes me want to go behind a sofa and puke–think cats.), I declared that although I was unhappy, I would give Trump a chance.
I agreed with Obama (Watch President Obama’s speech on Trump’s election victory: full video and transcript), and, mainly, I stated that it would be foolish to further undermine a Presidency that was going to be seen as weak from abroad. Too much was at stake. The best thing to do, I stated, was to remain vigilant. Protest if you must (though the election was over–it is still over, even if we do a recount), but save some of your energy for protesting what was to come. The days following underscored the need for vigilance: Bannon, Sessions, white supremacist groups (otherwise known by the euphemism alt-right) rearing their ugly heads… it is not the time to stick your head in the sand.
So how does this blog–recommending a recount, whatever the results, that will “delegitimize” in some ways a Trump presidency–fit with the belief that we need to give the president-elect a chance and wait to see how things progress before leaping to conclusions?
First, the transparency would put to rest lingering questions about our voting system and about the ability of foreign powers to interfere. Obviously, if it turns out Russia (or any other entity, domestic or foreign) did ‘hack the election,’ we need to know, and to do something about it.
Second, if it turns out Clinton either won or was very close to winning the swing states, the (overly optimistic) conservative claims of a “mandate” would be clearly wrong.
Third, I am tired of hearing about all the ways in which the DNC or Clinton or liberals failed. A Clinton victory would be most effective at stopping this, of course, but even a simple recount would be a distraction. It’s not that all three have not made mistakes, or even that the criticisms are wrong. It is that it seems to me that we are having trouble accepting that some people just do not agree with liberal ideology as it has been presented in the past few years. This cannot be explained away with “the DNC did this!!” or “Clinton is a flawed candidate!” (please) or “liberals are elitists who have disconnected from their old base” or misogyny or racism, etc. Yes, a lot of misogyny happened, but it doesn’t explain all the votes.
No, not everyone who voted for Trump is evil.
Some of the people who voted for Trump are racist or misogynist or xenophobic or homophobic, or one or more of the above. But many of them simply disagree with the Democratic party platform. It’s too bad all the witch hunts against Hillary Clinton (e.g.) have distorted perception of conservative thought that is in fact logical and consistent (if often wrong on my view).
If there was electoral fraud, investigating it and making the details known should not weaken a Trump presidency. I hope it will weaken the fervor of the uglier parts of his base. It may make the president-elect think seriously about whom he is selecting to run his Administration.** It should temper his policy (not that he seems to think much about any of it beyond the sound bite) and, more importantly, the actions of his Administration and Congress.
It will set the Democratic party up for wins in 2018 and 2020. And with every additional vote for Hillary Clinton, I feel better about my country.
**and while I am at it… when we consider Trump’s choices for his Cabinet, we need to think about his choices; he went into this not expecting to win, having offended most of the GOP establishment, and with no experience that would facilitate informed choices.
Would I like to see Clinton be President instead of Trump? Of course!! But I believe this is a very unlikely scenario, even if evidence of fraud were uncovered.
I know many people will disagree with me; feel free to leave comments pointing out all the flaws in my reasoning. I do not have time to spell things out, or address the issues, but I will eventually have time to come back to this.